Hi Phillipe,

Again you touch on issues in a...

2008-11-06T07:32:00.000-03:00

Hi Phillipe,

Again you touch on issues in a way that resonates with my mind and heart. I was reading this post and then read the post on the discourse of disunity. I was about to write the following in the discourse post, but realised it is a relevant and underappreicated element of the spiritual dimension of mental health also so I will place it here.

My parents were/are psychologists and although I didn't follow their path directly I always find myself intuitively applying psychological principles to understanding myself, other humans and the effects our internal minds have upon the formation of social institutions that we indwell. We indwell civilization as an extension of our own body through the power of our mind as a tool of the soul. In recent years I have been concerned with the manifestations of these indwelling approaches in analysing social and legal institutions and their relationship to mental health, and in particular Indigenous mental health in my professional life.

There is a great political philosophyer, Jurgen Habermas of use in thinking about these things. His views have changed over the years as he grew as a human being, but in one of his last public speeches he said some things I feel are a great resource for both of the most recent blog discussions. I extract a section from my PhD (sans footnotes but can provide references if anyone wants)

"By maintaining a cultural model which is largely a fragmentation of independent subjective realities we deny the possibility in sharing the exploration of potentially universal spiritual forces that may manifest themselves in infinitely diverse ways. We also exclude the possibility of beginning to develop respectful frameworks of contestation where we can co-evolve in our spiritual sciences that each culture and faith contribute to. Most importantly, we exclude the possibility of a unity of purpose in using those gifts to alleviate the suffering of humanity..."

"The eminent philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, in one of his most recent discussions, offers us an additional useful resource in appreciating how this can begin to occur, even within a deeply secularized society. First he explains the liberal conception of democratic citizenship emerged out of the historical reality of the religious wars and confessional conflicts in early Modern Times. He explains how the ‘assumption of a common human reason is the epistemic base for the justification of a secular state which no longer depends on religious legitimation. ’ This allows for the separation of church and state on the institutional level. He then explores the separation of church and state and how this has inappropriately been projected onto the expectations of internal metaphysics of human beings, concluding that:

…many religious citizens do not have good reasons to undertake an artificial division between secular and religious within their own minds, since they couldn’t do so without destabilizing their mode of existence as pious persons. The objection appeals to the integral role that religion plays in the life of a person of faith, in other words to religion’s “seat” in everyday life. A devout person pursues her daily rounds by drawing on her belief. True belief is not only a doctrine, believed content, but a source of energy that the faithful person taps performatively. Faith nurtures an entire life.

Quoting Nicolas Wolterstorff to reinforce this, Habermas continues by highlighting the reality that many religious people in our society feel they must base their decisions related to fundamental issues of justice on their religious convictions and do not feel doing otherwise is an option. He suggests that the state cannot protect religious freedom one the one hand, and then expect citizens to justify their political statements independent from their foundational religious convictions or world views.

The liberal state must not transform the requisite institutional separation of religion and politics into an undue mental and psychological burden for all those citizens who follow a faith. It must well expect of them to recognize the principle that any binding legislative, juridical or administrative decision must remain impartial with regard to competing world views, but it must not expect them to split their identity in public and private components as long as they participate in public debates and contribute to the formation of public opinions .

The current ‘democratic’ culture expects an internal separation of spiritual and material, faith and reason, heart and mind, placing legitimate focus on only the material, rational, mental categories of knowing. This creates a cognitive dissonance not just for Aboriginal people whose law and religion is more consciously integrated in Indigenous customary law, but for ‘white’ people as well. A recent extensive study conducted from UCLA of over 40,000 academics from a broad range of disciplines in over 120 universities demonstrates that over 80% consider themselves a ‘spiritual person’, while nearly half (more than half of women) believe it important to integrate this spirituality into their everyday life . They made similar findings in a study involving over 100,000 university students."

The reason why the above is so relevant for both blog discussions should be partially clear, but there are 'cognitive dissonances'that arise from the inability to live an integrated and holistic life where true independent investigation of truth not only affects our capacity for democratic consultation, but our mental health as whole human beings. Whole human beings that are less likely to resort to addictive behavior to replace the hole left by a culture that doesn't permit the joy and nobility of the spiritual self to be expressed in daily life.

Comments on Bahá’í Thought: Headed for AMERSA

Hi Phillipe,Again you touch on issues in a...

Hi Phillipe,

Again you touch on issues in a...